Stephen W. Frary, «Who Was Manifested In The Flesh? A Consideration Of Internal Evidence In Support Of A Variant In 1 Tim 3:16A», Vol. 16 (2003) 3-18

1 Tim 3:16 contains a textual variant in the initial line of what is
considered to be a hymn fragment which is difficult if not impossible to
resolve based on external evidence. This verse thus provides an interesting
test case by which we might examine the differing and often contradictory
ways that the leading schools of textual criticism use the agreed canons
of their trade to arrive at the original reading from the internal evidence.
This paper outlines the difficulties in the external evidence, and considers
how answers to three key questions about the internal readings of the text
result in contradictory findings. The author concludes that thoroughgoing
eclecticism (consideration of internal evidence alone) cannot determine the
original text and thus only a reexamination of external evidence or the likely
transmissional history can resolve the question.

3
WHO WAS MANIFESTED IN THE FLESH?
A CONSIDERATION OF INTERNAL EVIDENCE
IN SUPPORT OF A VARIANT IN 1 TIM 3:16A
STEPHEN W. FRARY
1 Tim 3:16 contains a textual variant in the initial line of what is
considered to be a hymn fragment which is difficult if not impossible to
resolve based on external evidence. This verse thus provides an interesting
test case by which we might examine the differing and often contradictory
ways that the leading schools of textual criticism use the agreed canons
of their trade to arrive at the original reading from the internal evidence.
This paper outlines the difficulties in the external evidence, and considers
how answers to three key questions about the internal readings of the text
result in contradictory findings. The author concludes that thoroughgoing
eclecticism (consideration of internal evidence alone) cannot determine the
original text and thus only a reexamination of external evidence or the likely
transmissional history can resolve the question.
Introduction
NT text critics are a strange breed. They tend to defend their terri-
tory staunchly, and one must trespass with extreme caution. Familiarity
with jargon is essential, and one must not assume that mere fluency in
their native language will suffice. For example, â€œthose who employ the
eclectic method with the greatest abandon seem to be the least eclectic,
for they tend, usually, to emphasize not a selection of various principles
and canons of textual criticism â€“as the term would implyâ€“ but only the
principles from one small corner of criticism, particularly the intrinsic
principle. . .â€1 In response, these â€œthoroughgoing eclecticsâ€ charge their
brother â€œreasoned eclecticsâ€ with being most unreasonable practitioners,
devotees of the â€œcult of the â€˜bestâ€™ manuscripts,â€2 for whom nearly a cen-
tury of effort has resulted in a critical edition of the NT which agrees in
substantially every respect with that produced over 100 years ago by their
E.J. Epp, â€œThe Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticismâ€, JBL
1
93 (1974) 404.
J.K. Elliott, â€œThoroughgoing Eclecticism in New Testament Textual Criticismâ€, in
2
B.D. Ehrman and M.W. Holmes (eds), The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary
Research. Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Grand Rapids, MI 1995) 332.
FilologÃ­a Neotestamentaria - Vol. XVI - 2003, pp. 3-18
Facultad de FilosofÃ­a y Letras - Universidad de CÃ³rdoba (EspaÃ±a)